Credibility takes a hit | IN OUR OPINION

Published 10:11 am Wednesday, October 21, 2015

This week’s revelation by Bainbridge Island city officials about their proposed location for a new police station and municipal court building is a troubling turn of events for Proposition 1.

The city is asking voters to approve Prop. 1, a $15 million bond measure that would pay for the purchase of land just north of city hall on Madison Avenue, as well as the construction of a much needed home there for the Bainbridge Island Police Department.

The fact that the Bainbridge police department needs a new building is beyond debate, even for most of the critics of Prop. 1.

What’s unresolved, and still a major point of contention, is the potential location of the new facility.

Many islanders remain disappointed that the city did not join forces with the Bainbridge Island Fire Department to build a joint police/fire station on land already owned by the public on Madison Avenue near Highway 305. The consultant company hired by both the fire department and city had reported that such a proposal would have saved taxpayers millions.

City officials and Prop. 1 supporters have pushed back on the co-location idea in recent weeks, noting that such arrangement isn’t the standard in cities across the state. Such comments leave us mystified, as Bainbridge is known for innovation and bucking the dime-a-dozen approaches found in so many places on the mainland.

Others said the city should have given a closer look at redeveloping the current location of the police station on Winslow Way as the preferred location.

On that, we find ourselves in agreement that the potential of the downtown site was never fully explored and that the city did not allow adequate consideration of that location for a new station.

Now comes the late news that the Madison Avenue site is polluted, and that city officials were well aware of the contamination before this week’s announcement of new tests and even greater levels of hazardous chemicals found on the property.

City officials have deflected criticism by saying it’s been public information that the site has been listed as a hazardous site. That may be so, but the city had an obligation to inform the public of any liabilities concerning the property as they were known, not when they became too huge to ignore.

While the city deserves credit for releasing the full report of the environmental analysis this week, its credibility has been hurt by its glossing over that officials knew that significant problems for developing the land were waiting just below the surface.